[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905080124.19794.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 01:24:18 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pavel@....cz,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Add __GFP_NO_OOM_KILL flag
On Friday 08 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009 00:50:41 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 08 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 May 2009 00:14:48 +0200
> > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > IOW, you need to freeze the user space totally before trying to disable the
> > > > OOM killer.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. We only need to take action if a task is about to
> > > start oom-killing - presumably by taking a nap.
> > >
> > > If a process is sitting there happily computing pi then we can leave it
> > > running.
> >
> > Well, the point is we don't really know what the task is going to do next.
> > Is it going to continue computing pi, or is it going to execl(huge_binary), for
> > example?
> >
> > If we knew what tasks were going to do in advance, the whole freezing wouldn't
> > really be necessary. :-)
>
> argh. Third time:
>
> - if the task is computing pi, let it do so.
>
> - if the task tries to allocate memory and succeeds, let it proceed.
>
> - if the task tries to allocate memory and fails and then tries to invoke
> the oom-killer, stop the task.
Understood.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists